Please enter the following details
Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
ABC Business School was a school with a difference. Regarded as one of the top business schools in western India, but relatively unknown beyond that, the school catered to smaller organizations seeking to hire students for sales and marketing positions, with occasional openings in HR roles. These students were open to secure job opportunities, even if they offered relatively lower salaries. The organizations, that recruited from ABC, did not really care for the talent, but appreciated the students' ability to follow orders without questioning them. The school’s strength laid in its alumni, who consistently returned to the institution for recruitment, thereby ensuring the school’s continued existence. Given the placement record, the school attracted a specific segment of business school aspirants, who wanted a solid job but were not excited about learning.
Recently, some alumni of ABC threatened that their children should be given preference in admissions, or they would withdraw as recruiters. The director was, however, hesitant about allowing alumni to interfere in running the school because the fairness of the admissions process had earned ABC high respect within the corporate world that recruited from the school.
Which of the following reasons, if true, will BEST help the director NOT to worry about pandering to those alumni?
Option C is the best answer for the following reasons:
1) It weakens the alumni's leverage. If their success relies on ABC's reputation for quality graduates, they have a vested interest in upholding the school's standards, including a fair admissions process.
2) It shifts the power dynamic. By highlighting the alumni's need for ABC's reputation, the director can frame the conversation around cooperation for mutual benefit, rather than succumbing to pressure.
Option A highlights the alumni's importance. It emphasizes their role in attracting recruiters, potentially making the director feel pressured to appease them to maintain that connection.
Option B doesn't directly address the admissions issue. Guest faculty roles are separate from admissions decisions, and having alumni involved could even be seen as a positive sign of engagement.
Option D is a good option, but option C is even stronger. While it shows there's no precedent for alumni interference, it doesn't address the alumni's own motivations.
Option E shows the director hasn't given in before, but it doesn't address the current pressure. The alumni might be more forceful this time, and the director needs a reason to justify saying no again.
Create a FREE account and get:
- All Quant Formulas and shortcuts PDF
- 15 XAT previous papers with solutions PDF
- XAT Trial Classes for FREE
